JHall573 - With all due respect particularly since I like a lot of your other posts, I must disagree here. I see humans as quite violent by their nature. Most religions have a little to do with theology and a lot with trying to tell people how to live in a civilized world. I have often stated here that religion is not the problem, it is the answer. If more people asked themselves "What would Jesus do" (or the equivalent for their religion), the world would be a safer and less violent place.

There was a story in last Sunday's New York Times book review section that reviewed a book that looked at "traditional" (i.e., tribal societies) that still exist in the modern world and looked among other things at the level of violence in these societies. Here is one quote from the article

This is what life was probably like for a couple of million years for humans and their ancestors on this planet. In the last 10,000 years various religions have tried to address this tendency of humans to be violent. Judging by that the author said, we are moderately successful in this when our rates of violence are compared with tribal societies.

And, there is still a lot of work to be done.

I agree that humans by our very nature are violent. I do not believe, however, that religion is the answer. Holy books have and some still say that if they do not believe the same as you then they should die. Religion is not the root cause of violence, but it is an inhibitor. The answer to violence in my opinion is knowledge. True knowledge is true power and a way to a more peaceful existence. I do appreciate the respectfulness of your post. I will have to read that whole article when I get home later.

I agree that humans by our very nature are violent. I do not believe, however, that religion is the answer. Holy books have and some still say that if they do not believe the same as you then they should die. Religion is not the root cause of violence, but it is an inhibitor. The answer to violence in my opinion is knowledge. True knowledge is true power and a way to a more peaceful existence. I do appreciate the respectfulness of your post. I will have to read that whole article when I get home later.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Motorcycle.com Free App

That's a very agreeable statement. I am very curious how you plan to make all the stupid people in the world smarter. I would be all in for that.

__________________G Man

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

The biggest mass murderers of the last Century were atheists or non believers. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao.They didn't kill in the name of Christ, Mohammed or even the flying spagetti monster. They killed for the same reason all tyrants kill.

To the atheist, or non believer, there's no fear of going to Hell after death, so it liberates their concience to create their own little Hell on earth if they choose. Religious tyrants kill in the name of their God because they think they're doing Gods bidding. Not much difference between the two principles because the end game is always the same. Control of wealth and people.

First of all, Hitler was not athiest. He was devoutly Catholic. Many of his speeches say as much.

Secondly, while Stalin and Mao were athiests their lack of belief had nothing to do with their mass murders. They did not kill anyone in the name of atheism or science. They were just evil people. Contrast that with the inquisition where anyone deemed a heretic was tortured and killed. Today the Israelis and palistinians are killing each other in droves because each of their holy books tells them that the land belongs to them and they should kill for it.

Also, you say having no religion means athiests don't believe in hell which is obviously a true statement. You also go on to say that is why they have no conscience. I would argue that 99% of athiests are good people that want nothing more than to advance our civilization through science and reason. I assure you we athiests most definitely have consciences. Albert Einstein was deeply regretful when his discovery of splitting atoms was used to create nuclear bombs.

That's a very agreeable statement. I am very curious how you plan to make all the stupid people in the world smarter. I would be all in for that.

No one can make someone more intelligent. It is up to the individual if they want to seek out more knowledge. Unfortunately the world is full of ignorance and the ignorant tend to put their fingers in their ears when you try to at least make a point. That last statement is in no way directed towards anyone specific. You seem very reasonable from what I have read of your posts.

No one can make someone more intelligent. It is up to the individual if they want to seek out more knowledge. Unfortunately the world is full of ignorance and the ignorant tend to put their fingers in their ears when you try to at least make a point. That last statement is in no way directed towards anyone specific. You seem very reasonable from what I have read of your posts.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Motorcycle.com Free App

Agreed. Most people will seek out more money and entertainment, but not knowledge.

The fingers in the ear thing seems to be a typical resonse these days. Those are the ignorant who just don't want any new knowledge or additional thoughts to process. Then you have the group who just won't listen because "they" are right and "you" are not and that's the end of the discussion. Then you have the group who just don't have the mental capacity to understand any more than they do. After you filter out those 3 groups, the remaining group is so small that it seems pointless to make the effort at "education".

I have deep thoughts on certain subjects but I generally like to hear arguments in the other direction and sometimes will even take the other side of the argument myself just for the sake of discussion and exposing new ideas to others and to myself. I have found that this puts me in a minority so usually I just hang out and make smart ass remarks.

__________________G Man

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

I agree that humans by our very nature are violent. I do not believe, however, that religion is the answer. Holy books have and some still say that if they do not believe the same as you then they should die. Religion is not the root cause of violence, but it is an inhibitor. The answer to violence in my opinion is knowledge. True knowledge is true power and a way to a more peaceful existence. I do appreciate the respectfulness of your post. I will have to read that whole article when I get home later.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Motorcycle.com Free App

I agree with you that there is a lot of problematic passages in the holy books of many religions, including the Bible. Biblical exegesis has dealt extensively with these passages in both the Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible. The same is true I believe for the Koran. Serious, sensible people have talked about the problematic passages that get (mis)quoted by those that like to take things out of context to suit their needs. To only read a passage and not read how it has been understood by others for the last 2,000 years is not serious study.

We both agree that humans are violent by nature. When I say religion is the answer, it is similar to when you say knowledge is the answer. Please let me explain.

There is very little theology in Judaism and Islam and only a little bit more in Christianity. In Judaism and Islam, all the theology can be summed up in two words, "God is". Once that is accepted (however you understand that), the rest is all about how to live your life in a way that honors God. Christian theology is a bit more complicated with the concept of the Trinity. But once past that it gets down to the same question, how do you run your life in a way that Jesus would have wanted ("What would Jesus do")? That is where the serious study begins and in the course, people become more knowledgeable.

I agree with you that 99% of the atheists I have met are good people and generally conduct their lives according to deeply held moral values.

Back in the 1980's, Ivan Boesky, a stock trader got into a lot of trouble related to inside trading of stocks. He copped a plea and agreed to give information against others. There was a period of time before his sentencing where he made it known that he was a reformed man and was now attending Torah study classes to try to make it seem like he was a better person. I was present when someone asked a rabbi "What do you think of Ivan Boesky trying to make himself look good now by taking Torah study classes". The rabbi immediately responded "I hope he learns something".

Agreed. Most people will seek out more money and entertainment, but not knowledge.

The fingers in the ear thing seems to be a typical resonse these days. Those are the ignorant who just don't want any new knowledge or additional thoughts to process. Then you have the group who just won't listen because "they" are right and "you" are not and that's the end of the discussion. Then you have the group who just don't have the mental capacity to understand any more than they do. After you filter out those 3 groups, the remaining group is so small that it seems pointless to make the effort at "education".

I have deep thoughts on certain subjects but I generally like to hear arguments in the other direction and sometimes will even take the other side of the argument myself just for the sake of discussion and exposing new ideas to others and to myself. I have found that this puts me in a minority so usually I just hang out and make smart ass remarks.

There is very little theology in Judaism and Islam and only a little bit more in Christianity. In Judaism and Islam, all the theology can be summed up in two words, "God is". Once that is accepted (however you understand that), the rest is all about how to live your life in a way that honors God. Christian theology is a bit more complicated with the concept of the Trinity.

Dang, Michael, that's good stuff.

__________________"The integrity of my word, faith in the quality of my goods and in my promise, have always meant more to me than mere transitory gain."

I agree with you that there is a lot of problematic passages in the holy books of many religions, including the Bible. Biblical exegesis has dealt extensively with these passages in both the Jewish and Christian versions of the Bible. The same is true I believe for the Koran. Serious, sensible people have talked about the problematic passages that get (mis)quoted by those that like to take things out of context to suit their needs. To only read a passage and not read how it has been understood by others for the last 2,000 years is not serious study.

We both agree that humans are violent by nature. When I say religion is the answer, it is similar to when you say knowledge is the answer. Please let me explain.

There is very little theology in Judaism and Islam and only a little bit more in Christianity. In Judaism and Islam, all the theology can be summed up in two words, "God is". Once that is accepted (however you understand that), the rest is all about how to live your life in a way that honors God. Christian theology is a bit more complicated with the concept of the Trinity. But once past that it gets down to the same question, how do you run your life in a way that Jesus would have wanted ("What would Jesus do")? That is where the serious study begins and in the course, people become more knowledgeable.

I agree with you that 99% of the atheists I have met are good people and generally conduct their lives according to deeply held moral values.

Back in the 1980's, Ivan Boesky, a stock trader got into a lot of trouble related to inside trading of stocks. He copped a plea and agreed to give information against others. There was a period of time before his sentencing where he made it known that he was a reformed man and was now attending Torah study classes to try to make it seem like he was a better person. I was present when someone asked a rabbi "What do you think of Ivan Boesky trying to make himself look good now by taking Torah study classes". The rabbi immediately responded "I hope he learns something".

I only have two things I disagree with here. It not so much diageeing with you as much as disagreeing with the philosophy behind it. When you say they accept that "god is" that doesn't explain anything. Not that you don't explain anything, the philosophy behind it doesn't. Then it gets very complicated when it gets to the part about honoring god. That is where the violence in the name of religion comes from I think.

Also theology explains the religion but it doesn't try to explain the universe. That is what I mean by knowledge the knowledge of the universe, our planet, and ourselves. Religion really doesn't have any meaningful insight into these tthings other than god did it.

First of all, Hitler was not athiest. He was devoutly Catholic. Many of his speeches say as much.

He wasn't exactly devoutly Catholic in fact he was very far from it. But he probably wasn't an atheist either. I'll give that one to you.

<snip>..."It is well established that Hitler quickly drew away from the esoteric world of the volkisch movement, because he did not want the kind of secret society of initiates that characterised that tradition. He wanted to build a mass movement. As a result, in Mein Kampf he wrote strongly in support of the Catholic Church and its traditions of authority and dogma. This was not out of any love for the content of church doctrine, but because he believed that the Nazis could use such forms to create their own "political confession," moving from "volkisch feeling" to an absolute faith in the rectitude of Nazi racial nationalism.

Hitler argued that the lack of compromise in Catholic dogma could be used as a model for Nazi Party "dogmas," implying the establishment of a dogmatic ideological faith that would be intolerant of any other such faith. In practice, however, the Nazis played fast and loose with their "party dogmas" in order to achieve political gains.

Which brings us to the third perspective - was Hitler a Christian? Emphatically not, if we consider Christianity in its traditional or orthodox form: Jesus as the son of God, dying for the redemption of the sins of all humankind. It is a nonsense to state that Hitler (or any of the Nazis) adhered to Christianity of this form.

The idea of universal salvation through Christ dying on the cross - the core concern of the recent celebration of Easter - was complete anathema to the Nazis, who adhered to salvation by race rather than grace. However, it is equally true that there were leading Nazis who adhered to a form of Christianity that had been "aryanised."Complete story here... http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...18/3480312.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHall573

Secondly, while Stalin and Mao were athiests their lack of belief had nothing to do with their mass murders. They did not kill anyone in the name of atheism or science. They were just evil people. Contrast that with the inquisition where anyone deemed a heretic was tortured and killed.

Some religious people are evil too, but not all of them are, nor were all of them way back when. I was responding to this statement...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHall573

Without religion there would be much less violence in the world.

It can also be said that without non-religious people there would much less violence in the world. I don't think Gengis Khan raided much of the Asian and European continents with the express purpose of spreading the Gospel. And I don't believe the Roman Empire had any interest in converting the people they conquered, other than to take and control other peoples sh!t.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHall573

Today the Israelis and palistinians are killing each other in droves because each of their holy books tells them that the land belongs to them and they should kill for it.

And so do the gangs in Chicago for almost the very same reason, but I don't think there's any religious book around telling them to do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHall573

Also, you say having no religion means athiests don't believe in hell which is obviously a true statement. You also go on to say that is why they have no conscience.

I didn't say atheists have no concience. What I did say is this: "To the atheist, or non believer, there's no fear of going to Hell after death, so it liberates their concience to create their own little Hell on earth if they choose." I said "liberate" as in liberate the concience that they already have, with the key words being "if they choose". But do carry on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHall573

I would argue that 99% of athiests are good people that want nothing more than to advance our civilization through science and reason. I assure you we athiests most definitely have consciences. Albert Einstein was deeply regretful when his discovery of splitting atoms was used to create nuclear bombs.

Perhaps 99% of you are, but that's still a very small number compareds to the vast number of religious people who are equally good people. For you to argue otherwise makes you somewhat of a bigot.

He wasn't exactly devoutly Catholic in fact he was very far from it. But he probably wasn't an atheist either. I'll give that one to you.

<snip>..."It is well established that Hitler quickly drew away from the esoteric world of the volkisch movement, because he did not want the kind of secret society of initiates that characterised that tradition. He wanted to build a mass movement. As a result, in Mein Kampf he wrote strongly in support of the Catholic Church and its traditions of authority and dogma. This was not out of any love for the content of church doctrine, but because he believed that the Nazis could use such forms to create their own "political confession," moving from "volkisch feeling" to an absolute faith in the rectitude of Nazi racial nationalism.

Hitler argued that the lack of compromise in Catholic dogma could be used as a model for Nazi Party "dogmas," implying the establishment of a dogmatic ideological faith that would be intolerant of any other such faith. In practice, however, the Nazis played fast and loose with their "party dogmas" in order to achieve political gains.

Which brings us to the third perspective - was Hitler a Christian? Emphatically not, if we consider Christianity in its traditional or orthodox form: Jesus as the son of God, dying for the redemption of the sins of all humankind. It is a nonsense to state that Hitler (or any of the Nazis) adhered to Christianity of this form.

The idea of universal salvation through Christ dying on the cross - the core concern of the recent celebration of Easter - was complete anathema to the Nazis, who adhered to salvation by race rather than grace. However, it is equally true that there were leading Nazis who adhered to a form of Christianity that had been "aryanised."Complete story here... http://www.abc.net.au/religion/artic...18/3480312.htm

Some religious people are evil too, but not all of them are, nor were all of them way back when. I was responding to this statement...

It can also be said that without non-religious people there would much less violence in the world. I don't think Gengis Khan raided much of the Asian and European continents with the express purpose of spreading the Gospel. And I don't believe the Roman Empire had any interest in converting the people they conquered, other than to take and control other peoples sh!t.

And so do the gangs in Chicago for almost the very same reason, but I don't think there's any religious book around telling them to do so.

I didn't say atheists have no concience. What I did say is this: "To the atheist, or non believer, there's no fear of going to Hell after death, so it liberates their concience to create their own little Hell on earth if they choose." I said "liberate" as in liberate the concience that they already have, with the key words being "if they choose". But do carry on...

Perhaps 99% of you are, but that's still a very small number compareds to the vast number of religious people who are equally good people. For you to argue otherwise makes you somewhat of a bigot.

The Holy Roman Empire spread and conquered for the express reason to spread their holdings and to convert the people to Christianity in the later era of the empire. That is why Christmas is in December, and why the Celtic cross is has a circle around the center of the cross. It was to make it easier to convert he pagans.

I didn't say religious people are any worse than anyone else. I said religion tells people it is okay to do some evil things.

The Holy Roman Empire spread and conquered for the express reason to spread their holdings and to convert the people to Christianity in the later era of the empire. That is why Christmas is in December, and why the Celtic cross is has a circle around the center of the cross. It was to make it easier to convert he pagans.

I didn't say religious people are any worse than anyone else. I said religion tells people it is okay to do some evil things.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Motorcycle.com Free App

The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy nor Roman. They used Christianity as their cover story for their wanting to conquer, steal, rape, kill and do other nefarious acts. These people were not religious people though some of them might have been involved with the church. They used Christianity as their excuse, but it had nothing to do with Christianity. The same is true for other wars fought in the name of religion whether it is Christians, Muslims or whatever.

The Holy Roman Empire spread and conquered for the express reason to spread their holdings and to convert the people to Christianity in the later era of the empire. That is why Christmas is in December, and why the Celtic cross is has a circle around the center of the cross. It was to make it easier to convert he pagans.

I didn't say religious people are any worse than anyone else. I said religion tells people it is okay to do some evil things.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Motorcycle.com Free App

The Roman Empire existed some 500 years before the birth of Christ. Rome began annexing (conquering) provinces as early as 300 BC, which was hardly for the purposes of converting peoples to Christianity which didn't occur for several centurys thereafter.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the V-Twin Forum : Harley-Davidson Motorcycle Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. WE WILL SEND A CONFIRMATION EMAIL TO THE ADDRESS YOU PROVIDE. If the email address is NOT VALID, you will not be given access to the system!

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.